155. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if a peacekeeping mission deployment has ever been unable to proceed due to the lack of agreement of the UN General Assembly, as provided for in the in the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006, since the introduction of the triple lock following the Nice and Lisbon treaties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18307/25]
Sentiment score: 0.27
In the context of the ongoing discussions around the triple lock, which have been referenced, and the Government's proposal to dismantle it, I ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence whether a peacekeeping mission deployment has ever been unable to proceed due to the lack of agreement of the UN General Assembly since the introduction of the triple lock, which is a measure provided for in the Defence (Amendment) Act.
Sentiment score: 0.69
I thank the Tánaiste for his answer. Once again he said he supports military neutrality but it appears not when we see the actions the Government is taking and this proposal before us. While he positions the change as something he has to do because he cannot secure the UN mandate, the facts do not justify it. I am left to assume he does not want to have that UN mandate applied to our peacekeeping missions and the human rights monitoring and transparency it demands. The reality is the General Assembly endorsement can satisfy our triple lock. I will go through some of these facts. China vetoed the renewal of the Macedonia mission in 1999 due to its recognition of Taiwan. No peacekeeping mission has been blocked since. In fact, many UN peacekeeping missions have had their mandates renewed, including the Golan Heights, and UN mandates were given to Operation Sophia and the mission in Haiti established last year. The Tánaiste mentioned the time the General Assembly was used. They based it on the "uniting for peace" resolution, which can be deployed. These are the facts and the Tánaiste's answer does not adequately address them. Can he point me to when a peacekeeping mission has been prevented or even hampered because the General Assembly did not do its job?
Sentiment score: 0.21
In answer to the first of the two questions posed by the Tánaiste, I am aware that, of course, there are other countries that are militarily neutral that do not have a triple lock. However, they did not arrive at their position of neutrality in the same historic pathway as we did with the Nice and Lisbon treaties, simple as that. The other question the Tánaiste asked concerned whether the people of Ireland want those missions to be stopped, which once again brings us into the hypothetical - the “What ifs?” or “Would you?” - and the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, did exactly the same when we had a debate on this a number of weeks ago. This veto is posed as a "What if?” or "Why are we there?" It seems the Government wishes to justify this massive policy change with no examples of the actual issue arising for peacekeeping. EU missions have received UN mandates before. I mentioned, for example, Operation Sophia and, in that instance, the mandate guaranteed the human rights monitoring and other checks and balances that are vital to missions like these. We pulled out of the UN mission in Syria not due to a lack of mandate but due to a lack of troops. The reason we had that lack of troops was that we committed to a non-UN-backed EU battlegroup that is not accountable to either the European Parliament or the European Court of Human Rights. If I genuinely believed that we were boxed in in the way the Tánaiste describes, I would be with him on this, but there is no evidence to that effect. That is why I am left asking why we are pivoting away from human rights accountability and transparency in the deployment of our troops and jeopardising our long-held gold standard reputation for peacekeeping.
Sentiment score: 0.15
No, I asked when it was prevented by the UN General Assembly.
Sentiment score: -0.27